"A raid on a lawyer's office doesn't happen every day" - NY Times with insights Australian media could've used in 2013
Last week I received some personal bad news.
It's knocked me around a fair bit - and I've found it very difficult to engage with you here because of it.
It's in the "we'll get over it" category, and that's precisely what I intend to do!
Last week I published the first couple of articles in what will be a series of pieces that draw on material seized by Victoria Police from search warrants executed in 2013.
The most notorious of those police raids was on the then incumbent Prime Minister's former office at Slater and Gordon.
I thought that raid should have been much bigger news than was reported at the time, particularly now that I know what the police found.
So compare and contrast the Australian media's reporting/investigation of the police raid on then PM Gillard's former offices with this editorial from the New York Times published a day or so ago!
Early Monday morning, F.B.I. agents raided the New York office, home and hotel room of the personal lawyer for the president of the United States. They seized evidence of possible federal crimes — including bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance violations
A raid on a lawyer’s office doesn’t happen every day; it means that multiple government officials, and a federal judge, had reason to believe they’d find evidence of a crime there and that they didn’t trust the lawyer not to destroy that evidence.
.... the raids on the premises used by Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, were conducted by the public corruption unit of the federal attorney’s office in Manhattan, and at the request not of the special counsel’s team, but under a search warrant that investigators in New York obtained following a referral by Mr. Mueller...
Mr. Trump railed against the authorities who, he said, “broke into” Mr. Cohen’s office. “Attorney-client privilege is dead!” the president tweetedearly Tuesday morning, during what was presumably his executive time. He was wrong. The privilege is one of the most sacrosanct in the American legal system, but it does not protect communications in furtherance of a crime.
Anyway, one might ask, if this is all a big witch hunt and Mr. Trump has nothing illegal or untoward to hide, why does he care about the privilege in the first place?
One could ask precisely that question of Ms Gillard, Mr Murphy, Mr Cain and Mr Wilson. More soon.